Rete

Anyone can pick up fake identification. You can make it up yourself. But unless you are actually using it what crime have you committed. If you sold it, you have committed a crime. Say I found one on the street and put it in my wallet. My car was stopped because of suspicious weaving leaving the officer to think I was DWI. He does a search and finds the ID. What am I guilty of? Also what about all those underage drinkers using phony IDs. They are arrested for drinking but not for possession of fraudulent documents.

R

steelgrill

I thought a document is considered false if the photo didn't match a legally changed name or the name by birth.

It couldn't be considered false if it's found. In fact, a lost and found ID I think is very real.

I think it's a crime to have a "false document". This they definitely should've been held for. The next thing is how could they have determined so quickly that it was all false.

INS I think has an overwhelming job. Nonetheless, especially now they should have had policies in place to trap situations like these. Because now the bad guys know when to move around.

Andrew Defaria

Rete wrote:

    > I believe the law says you are allowed to hold a suspected criminal for 48 hours
    > before having to press charges.

Not if you're an immigrant, I here.

    > On what grounds did the police of NYC have to hold these men?

How about being in the country illegally?

    > Being a passenger in a van is not a criminal offense. Carrying false documents is
    > not a criminal offense. Using those documents as identification is.

Didn't they use those documents as identification?

    > But do we know if anyone of them attempted to identify themselves with fraudulent
    > documents?

Where they even held 48 hours?

    > As for INS, you had only to watch the last episode of Law and Order last Wednesday
    > and you would have seen the televised version of how the INS and the FBI work so
    > well together NOT!

And this is a good thing?!?

    > As for preventing 9/11, how do you propose we could have done that? Yes we could
    > have denied them F-1's.

Make that should have.

    > Yes we could have halted all air travel for the month of September if we weren't
    > sure of the expected date of their suicide mission. Yes we could have an
    > immigration system in place that works and tracks foreigners on and to our soil.

Again, make that should have - by law actually!

    > But really, now, are any of options viable?

Sure are.

    > Think not.

Think again.

    > A foreigner comes into the US with a round trip ticket. How are you going to know
    > that they will leave when they say they will?

You have system with which you have to clock in and out. If you clock in and not out
then - bingo!

    > Do you want a police state where your home can be searched for illegal immigrants
    > who overstayed their visas?

Don't think you need that but if there is probably cause and a warrant then,
well, sure.

    > Are you going to go into the fields and arrest the migrant workers and let the
    > lettuce rot on the ground?

If they are illegal...

    > Are you going to issue unremoval tracking bracelets on all foreigners
    > entering the US?

Don't think we need that. Don't think you can make "unremoval[sic] tracking
bracelets".

    > Are you going to strip search all flight passengers and go through each and every
    > piece of luggage? Are you going to want psycological testing of all passengers who
    > buy an airline ticket? Are you going to do a complete family history of all
    > passengers going back three generations to weed out the mentally infirm or
    > religious zealots?

Now you're being absurd.

    > As for 9/11, once again who is smart enough to take each and every little thread
    > and weave it to make a wool sweater?

Ah, sweater makers !

    > We can't do it now on 5/31 and we are looking for those threads. What do you really
    > really think we could have done on 9/10 to prevent
    > 9/11's attacks?

Yes we could have. Do you really, really believe that government is efficient at
all?!? Yet such things can be done.

Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta
http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title>
</head> <body> Rete wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]">I believe the law says you are allowed to hold a
suspected criminal for 48 hours before having to press charges. </blockquote> Not if
you're an immigrant, I here.<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]">On what grounds did the police of NYC have to
hold these men? </blockquote> How about being in the country illegally?<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">Being a passenger in a
van is not a criminal offense. Carrying false documents is not a criminal offense.
Using those documents as identification is. </blockquote> Didn't they use those
documents as identification?<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]">But do we know if anyone of them attempted to
identify themselves with fraudulent documents? </blockquote> Where they even held 48
hours?<br> <blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">As for INS,
you had only to watch the last episode of Law and Order last Wednesday and you would
have seen the televised version of how the INS and the FBI work so well together
NOT!</blockquote> And this is a good thing?!?<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]">As for preventing
9/11, how do you propose we could have done that? Yes we could have denied them
F-1's. </blockquote> Make that <b>should</b> have.<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]">Yes we could have halted all air travel for
the month of September if we weren't sure of the expected date of their suicide
mission. Yes we could have an immigration system in place that works and tracks
foreigners on and to our soil. </blockquote> Again, make that <b>should</b> have -
by law actually!<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]">But really, now, are any of options viable?
</blockquote> Sure are.<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]">Think not. </blockquote> Think again.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">A foreigner comes into
the US with a round trip ticket. How are you going to know that they will leave
when they say they will? </blockquote> You have system with which you have to clock
in and out. If you clock in and not out then - bingo!<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]">Do you want a police state where your home can
be searched for illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas? </blockquote> Don't
think you need that but if there is probably cause and a warrant then, well,
sure.<br> <blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">Are you
going to go into the fields and arrest the migrant workers and let the lettuce rot
on the ground?</blockquote> If they are illegal...<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]">Are you going to issue unremoval tracking
bracelets on all foreigners entering the US? </blockquote> Don't think we need
that. Don't think you can make "unremoval[sic] tracking bracelets".<br> <blockquote
type="cite" cite="[email protected]">Are you going to strip search all
flight passengers and go through each and every piece of luggage? Are you going to
want psycological testing of all passengers who buy an airline ticket? Are you
going to do a complete family history of all passengers going back three
generations to weed out the mentally infirm or religious zealots?</blockquote> Now
you're being absurd.<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]">As for 9/11, once again who is smart enough to
take each and every little thread and weave it to make a wool sweater?
</blockquote> Ah, sweater makers <span><span> </span></span>!<br> <blockquote
type="cite" cite="[email protected]">We can't do it now on 5/31 and we
are looking for those threads. What do you really really think we could have done
on 9/10 to prevent 9/11's attacks?</blockquote> Yes we could have. Do you really,
really believe that government is efficient at all?!? Yet such things can be
done.<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]"></blockquote> <br> </body> </html

Andrew Defaria

Dave and Emily wrote:

    > Andrew DeFaria wrote news:[email protected]:
    >
    >> No but it just might help prevent such things from happening again. Of course,
    >> perhaps you do not find such an endeavor worthwhile but many of us do. It is,
    >> ultimately, one of the government's prime objectives and responsibility and it is
    >> again, ultimately, their fault. And this says nothing about the bumbling job the
    >> FBI has been doing and has done. They do not appear to be much better than the INS
    >> (and that surely isn't saying much).
    >>
    >> So I'm confused as to what your statement is trying to do. Should we instead
    >> praise them? Should we instead simply "let by gones be by gones" and hold them
    >> blameless? What would you have us do?
    >
    > Did I say that? I don't recall doing so. Nor did I imply it. You chose to be
    > confused by my post, I think.

No I chose to take your lack of suggesting a better alternative as implying that
nothing should be done. Quite a reasonable assumption I might add. And I ended asking
you directly what you think we should do (which you still neglect to address).

    > The Office of Homeland Security bears the responsibility of reducing the likelihood
    > of similar attacks. I'm not debating that the FBI/CIA/whoever has done a poor job
    > of predicting and preventing terrorist attacks - that much is obvious. All I'm
    > saying is that to throw mud around now is akin to what I understand is called
    > 'Monday-morning quarterbacking'. It serves no purpose whatsoever.

And I'm saying it does indeed serve a purpose. It's purpose is to point out how
things got dropped so we can cover them in the future. What serves no purpose is not
bringing such things to light.

    > And let's not try to delude ourselves that terrorist attacks such as those that
    > took place in September are completely preventable. I come from a country - the
    > United Kingdom - where the threat of terrorist attacks are a way of life,
    > particularly for members of the military and security services.
    >
    > It is simply impossible to prevent all terrorism, and to think otherwise is to have
    > one's head in the clouds. And before you reply to that, I am NOT implying that you
    > have your head in the clouds - I'm quite sure you're a sensible reasoning adult.

Yes, indeed. Be certain that nothing in life is for certain . However is seems to
me to be the opposite of having one's head in the clouds - having one's head in the
sand - to dismiss statements that are pointing out the inadequacies of the past. It's
not Monday morning quarterbacking (BTW, being Monday night football here in the
States that would be Tuesday morning quarterbacking ) it's investigating who knew
what when and what caused the information breakdown that, if not broke down, might
have prevented such a tragedy.

If you are not suggesting that we simply drop such investigations and calls for
investigation then pray tell what are you suggestion we do except to let them go
saying to discuss them is merely "Monday morning quarterbacking"?!?

Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta
http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title>
</head> <body> Dave and Emily wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="midXns921F926476991davelamb68hotmailcom@209. 249.90.101">Andrew DeFaria wrote <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="news:[email protected]:">news:[email protected]:</a><br>
<blockquote type="cite">No but it just might help prevent such things from happening
again. Of course, perhaps you do not find such an endeavor worthwhile but many of us
do. It is, ultimately, one of the government's prime objectives and responsibility
and it is again, ultimately, their fault. And this says nothing about the bumbling
job the FBI has been doing and has done. They do not appear to be much better than
the INS (and that surely isn't saying much).<br> <br> So I'm confused as to what your
statement is trying to do. Should we &nbsp;instead praise them? Should we instead
simply "let by gones be by gones" and hold them blameless? What would you have us
do?<br> </blockquote> <!TEST->Did I say that? I don't recall doing so. Nor did I
imply it. You chose to be confused by my post, I think.</blockquote> No I chose to
take your lack of suggesting a better alternative as implying that nothing should be
done. Quite a reasonable assumption I might add. And I ended asking you directly what
you think we should do (which you still neglect to address).<br> <blockquote
type="cite" cite="midXns921F926476991davelamb68hotmailcom@209. 249.90.101">The Office
of Homeland Security bears the responsibility of reducing the likelihood of similar
attacks. I'm not debating that the FBI/CIA/whoever has done a poor job of predicting
and preventing terrorist attacks - that much is obvious. All I'm saying is that to
throw mud around now is akin to what I understand is called 'Monday-morning
quarterbacking'. It serves no purpose whatsoever.</blockquote> And I'm saying it does
indeed serve a purpose. It's purpose is to point out how things got dropped so we can
cover them in the future. What serves no purpose is not bringing such things to
light.<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="midXns921F926476991davelamb68hotmailcom@209. 249.90.101">And let's not try to
delude ourselves that terrorist attacks such as those that took place in September
are completely preventable. I come from a country - the United Kingdom - where the
threat of terrorist attacks are a way of life, particularly for members of the
military and security services.<br> <br> It is simply impossible to prevent all
terrorism, and to think otherwise is to have one's head in the clouds. And before you
reply to that, I am NOT implying that you have your head in the clouds - I'm quite
sure you're a sensible reasoning adult.<br> </blockquote> Yes, indeed. Be certain
that nothing in life is for certain <span><span>
     </span></span>. However is seems to me to be the opposite of having one's
head in the clouds - having one's head in the sand - to dismiss statements that are
pointing out the inadequacies of the past. It's not Monday morning quarterbacking
(BTW, being Monday <b>night</b> football here in the States that would be Tuesday
morning quarterbacking <span><span> </span></span>) it's investigating who knew
what when and what caused the information breakdown that, if not broke down, might
have prevented such a tragedy.<br> <br> If you are not suggesting that we simply drop
such investigations and calls for investigation then pray tell what are you
suggestion we do except to let them go saying to discuss them is merely "Monday
morning quarterbacking"?!?<br> </body> </html

Mrtravel@Sbcglo

Rete wrote:
    >
    > Anyone can pick up fake identification. You can make it up yourself.

Are you insisting that you are permitted to make an ID card that looks like an
official government issued ID like a DL, Police ID, etc as long as you aren't caught
using it??? Come on.. I am sure I can even find the state statute in New York if you
really have yourself convinced that the possession of fake government id is legal.

But
    > unless you are actually using it what crime have you committed. If you sold it, you
    > have committed a crime. Say I found one on the street and put it in my

It would be interesting to find one in the street with YOUR picture in
it.

Andrew Defaria

[email protected] wrote:

    > Rete wrote:
    >
    >> Anyone can pick up fake identification. You can make it up yourself.
    >
    > Are you insisting that you are permitted to make an ID card that looks like an
    > official government issued ID like a DL, Police ID, etc as long as you aren't
    > caught using it??? Come on.. I am sure I can even find the state statute in New
    > York if you really have yourself convinced that the possession of fake government
    > id is legal.

I'm not positive of the law in this regard however mrtravel (if that's your real
name! You're not forging it are you? ) this would be the time for somebody to call
you on your statement here and ask for even you to find said statute! Consider your
bluff called.

Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta
http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title>
</head> <body> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">Rete wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Anyone can pick up fake identification. You can make it up
yourself.<br> </blockquote> <!TEST->Are you insisting that you are permitted to make
an ID card that looks like an official government issued ID like a DL, Police ID, etc
as long as you aren't caught using it??? Come on.. I am sure I can even find the
state statute in New York if you really have yourself convinced that the possession
of fake government id is legal. <br> </blockquote> I'm not positive of the law in
this regard however mrtravel (if that's your real name! You're not forging it are
you? <span><span> </span></span>) this would be the time for somebody to call you
on your statement here and ask for even you to find said statute! Consider your bluff
called.<br> </body> </html

Mrtravel

    > Andrew DeFaria wrote:

    > I'm not positive of the law in this regard however mrtravel (if that's your real
    > name! You're not forging it are you? ) this would be the time for somebody to
    > call you on your statement here and ask for even you to find said statute! Consider
    > your bluff called.

I don't have time to look right now, but check out this article on fake ids in
Austin, TX.

http://www.texassafetynetwork.org/ne...002/022802.htm

It includes:

" Severe penalties apply to the possession, manufacture, use or sale of altered/false
driver's license. Stiff fines and jail time are both common punishments."

Dave And Emily

Andrew DeFaria wrote news:[email protected]:

    > No I chose to take your lack of suggesting a better alternative as implying that
    > nothing should be done. Quite a reasonable assumption I might add. And I ended
    > asking you directly what you think we should do (which you still neglect to
    > address).

No, it was not a reasonable assumption, it was a facetious one. There was no such
implication in my post, it was all inferred by you. The only reason you see your
assumption as reasonable is that it was your own. The reason I neglected to address
your question is that, obviously unlike yourself, I don't have all of the answers.

    > And I'm saying it does indeed serve a purpose. It's purpose is to point out how
    > things got dropped so we can cover them in the future. What serves no purpose is
    > not bringing such things to light.

Very well, I'll concede that point. But you cannot deny that it will have the added
effect of drawing attention away from other government foul-ups; but in addition to
that - something you may have overlooked - it will detract from the relevant
department's ability to carry out its mission effectively.

    > Yes, indeed. Be certain that nothing in life is for certain . However is seems
    > to me to be the opposite of having one's head in the clouds - having one's head in
    > the sand -

To digress into an issue of semantics for just a moment - How is having one's head in
the sand the opposite of having one's head in the clouds? All logic says that they
are variations on the same thing.

    > to dismiss statements that are pointing out the inadequacies of the past.

I did not - WOULD not - dismiss such a statement. To point out such an inadequacy is
one thing. To point it out and then do something about it, however, is what I would
call 'helpful'.

    > It's not Monday morning quarterbacking (BTW, being Monday night football here in
    > the States that would be Tuesday morning quarterbacking )

Mea culpa. I apologise to fans of American football.

    > it's investigating who knew what when and what caused the information breakdown
    > that, if not broke down, might have prevented such a tragedy.

And just how are you investigating these things?

    > If you are not suggesting that we simply drop such investigations and calls for
    > investigation then pray tell what are you suggestion we do except to let them go
    > saying to discuss them is merely "Monday morning quarterbacking"?!?

I am 'suggestion' (sic) that there is nothing 'we' can do. Your and my words here are
pointless. We may be able to help to ensure the prevention of further terrorist
attacks by way of our own personal vigilance (something which I personally doubt,
having seen decades of terrorist violence in Great Britain and Northern Ireland), but
we can do nothing to stop them by bitching and moaning here.

I know you're fond of having the last word in these arguments, so this will be my
last post in this thread. I don't see the point of contributing further to a
discussion that can only descend into a spiral of "Yes it is." "No it isn't." "Yes it
is." "No it isn't." which, as I have noticed in the past, is your usual style.

Dave.

Vladimir Jigoun

Come on people. Get real. Who cares about 4 persons? Just run police database with
SSNs against IRS database with SSNs and you'll get 4 000 000 (or more?) illegal
immigrants with phones and home addresses. If you prefer those who ride vans you can
run it against RMV database, I think you'll get half a mil illegals who own vans. Do
you want me to post all illegal van owners to this newsgroup? Just kidding

    > http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/49166.htm

Andrew Defaria

Vladimir Jigounov wrote:

    > Come on people. Get real. Who cares about 4 persons? Just run police database with
    > SSNs against IRS database with SSNs and you'll get 4 000 000 (or more?) illegal
    > immigrants with phones and home addresses. If you prefer those who ride vans you
    > can run it against RMV database, I think you'll get half a mil illegals who own
    > vans. Do you want me to post all illegal van owners to this newsgroup?

Go for it!

Mrtravel

Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    >
    > Vladimir Jigounov wrote:
    >
    > > Come on people. Get real. Who cares about 4 persons? Just run police database
    > > with SSNs against IRS database with SSNs and you'll get 4 000 000 (or more?)
    > > illegal immigrants with phones and home addresses. If you prefer those who ride
    > > vans you can run it against RMV database, I think you'll get half a mil illegals
    > > who own vans. Do you want me to post all illegal van owners to this newsgroup?
    >
    > Go for it!

I'd like to know how you can take a police db with SSNs and an IRS db with SSN and
find illegal immigrants. If they have a SSN, doesn't it make it harder to know they
are illegal?

M1nn0w

Andrew DeFaria wrote in message <[email protected]>... Rete wrote:

Yes we could have halted all air travel for the month of September if we weren't
sure of the expected date of their suicide mission. Yes we could have an
immigration system in place that works and tracks foreigners on and to our soil.
Again, make that should have - by law actually!

I don't know about all the points made in Rete's statement but
I think it's time you took a good strong dose of "Get Real"
medicine. Ground the airline industry for a whole month????
Ground it for several days and see what happens. Do you think
everyone who flies is a tourist? Do you think these jumbo jets
carry nothing but passengers. And What of the cargo/express
delivery carriers? The economy of the airline industry would
ground to a halt. Workers would be out of work. Other
businesses would begin to feel the pinch. Quite probably laying
off other workers. I don't think the economists of this country
would allow such a thing. Look how quickly they got the planes
flying again without even knowing if more attacks were planned.
No I don't think so......

We can't do it now on 5/31 and we are looking for those threads. What do you
really really think we could have done on 9/10 to prevent 9/11's attacks? Yes we
could have. Do you really, really believe that government is efficient at all?!?
Yet such things can be done.

Yes I really, really believe that this government is far less
efficient than it ought to be. It can't staff enough people to do
the job it needs to be doing and inter-service rivalry hamstrings
whatever efficiencies are left. This government receives more data
in a day than it can comb through in a month. The police stopped
these people on gut level instinct. A good catch in my opinion.
When they went to INS they couldn't be bothered. If I was the cop I
would have ben insulted. It was if the INS guy was saying what
could some dumb-assed cop know about Immigration laws. Then they
let them go with the statement that we'll take care of it our way.
How many hours, do you think, passed after those guys hit the
street before they were "elseplace" If that was an active
"terrorist cell" they were in the wind before the story broke.
According to the news, this morning, the CIA knew two of the
hijackers months before the act. Did they notify the FBI? Hell no.
If we told them then we both would know. What's special about that?
NO such things cannot be done. At least not yet.

Andrew Defaria

M1nn0w wrote:

    > Andrew DeFaria wrote in message <[email protected]>... Rete wrote:
    >
    > Yes we could have halted all air travel for the month of September if we weren't
    > sure of the expected date of their suicide mission. Yes we could have an
    > immigration system in place that works and tracks foreigners on and to our soil.
    >
    > Again, make that should have - by law actually!
    >
    > I don't know about all the points made in Rete's statement but I think it's time
    > you took a good strong dose of "Get Real" medicine. Ground the airline industry for
    > a whole month???? Ground it for several days and see what happens. Do you think
    > everyone who flies is a tourist? Do you think these jumbo jets carry nothing but
    > passengers. And What of the cargo/express delivery carriers? The economy of the
    > airline industry would ground to a halt. Workers would be out of work. Other
    > businesses would begin to feel the pinch. Quite probably laying off other workers.
    > I don't think the economists of this country would allow such a thing. Look how
    > quickly they got the planes flying again without even knowing if more attacks were
    > planned. No I don't think so......

You misread my meaning. The changing of "could have" to "should have" that I referred
to above was for the 2nd "could" not the first in Yes we should have an immigration
system in place that works and tracks foreigners on and to our soil. The "by law
actually" phrase refers to the 1996 law which said that we should have a computerized
database tracking foreign students specifically. It was mandated by law but never
implemented!

    > Yes I really, really believe that this government is far less efficient than it
    > ought to be. It can't staff enough people to do the job it needs to be doing and
    > inter-service rivalry hamstrings whatever efficiencies are left.

Just about every encounter I have with "government" is horribly inefficient and it's
not just not enough people to do the job. It's deeper than that and yet actually
quite simple to fix. Most often it's horribly inefficient systems left over from
antiquated processes and mindsets. The prove? Businesses have already proven time and
time again that there is a more efficient way to do the same job.

    > This government receives more data in a day than it can comb through in a month.
    > The police stopped these people on gut level instinct. A good catch in my opinion.
    > When they went to INS they couldn't be bothered.

What kind of answer is "they couldn't be bothered"? That's simple! It's an
unacceptable one!

    > If I was the cop I would have ben insulted. It was if the INS guy was saying what
    > could some dumb-assed cop know about Immigration laws.

Pure conjecture.

    > Then they let them go with the statement that we'll take care of it our way. How
    > many hours, do you think, passed after those guys hit the street before they were
    > "elseplace" If that was an active "terrorist cell" they were in the wind before the
    > story broke. According to the news, this morning, the CIA knew two of the hijackers
    > months before the act. Did they notify the FBI? Hell no. If we told them then we
    > both would know. What's special about that? NO such things cannot be done. At least
    > not yet.

No the real question is how would hiring more people solve that problem. The answer
is it wouldn't - because the problem is not simply one of manpower to resources thus
throwing more money or men at it will not solve the problem. The problem is process
and the ability of government to get away with such things!

Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head>
<title></title> </head> <body> M1nn0w wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]"> Andrew DeFaria
wrote in message <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:3CF82AC3.3020709@DeFa-
ria.com">&lt;[email protected]&gt;</a>...<br> Rete wrote:<br> <br> Yes we
could have halted all air travel for the month of September if we weren't sure of the
expected date of their suicide mission. Yes we could have an immigration system in
place that works and tracks foreigners on and to our soil.<br> <br> Again, make that
should have - by law actually!<br> <br> I don't know about all the points made in
Rete's statement but I think it's time you took a good strong dose of "Get Real"
medicine. Ground the airline industry for a whole month???? Ground it for several
days and see what happens. Do you think everyone who flies is a tourist? Do you think
these jumbo jets carry nothing but passengers. And What of the cargo/express delivery
carriers? The economy of the airline industry would ground to a halt. Workers would
be out of work. Other businesses would begin to feel the pinch. Quite probably laying
off other workers. I don't think the economists of this country would allow such a
thing. Look how quickly they got the planes flying again without even knowing if more
attacks were planned. No I don't think so......</blockquote> You misread my meaning.
The changing of "could have" to "should have" that I referred to above was for the
2nd "could" not the first in <i>Yes we <b>should have</b> an immigration system in
place that works and tracks foreigners on and to our soil.</i><b> </b>The "by law
actually" phrase refers to the 1996 law which said that we should have a computerized
database tracking foreign students specifically. It was mandated by law but never
implemented!<b>&nbsp;</b><i><b> </b></i><br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]">Yes I really,
really believe that this government is far less efficient than it ought to be. It
can't staff enough people to do the job it needs to be doing and inter-service
rivalry hamstrings whatever efficiencies are left. </blockquote> Just about every
encounter I have with "government" is horribly inefficient and it's not just not
enough people to do the job. It's deeper than that and yet actually quite simple to
fix. Most often it's horribly inefficient systems left over from antiquated processes
and mindsets. The prove? Businesses have already proven time and time again that
there is a more efficient way to do the same job.<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]">This government
receives more data in a day than it can comb through in a month. The police stopped
these people on gut level instinct. A good catch in my opinion. When they went to INS
they couldn't be bothered. </blockquote> What kind of answer is "they couldn't be
bothered"? That's simple! It's an unacceptable one!<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]">If I was the cop
I would have ben insulted. It was if the INS guy was saying what could some
dumb-assed cop know about Immigration laws. </blockquote> Pure conjecture.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]">Then they let
them go with the statement that we'll take care of it our way. How many hours, do you
think, passed after those guys hit the street before they were "elseplace" If that
was an active "terrorist cell" they were in the wind before the story broke.
According to the news, this morning, the CIA knew two of the hijackers months before
the act. Did they notify the FBI? Hell no. If we told them then we both would know.
What's special about that? NO such things cannot be done. At least not
yet.</blockquote> No the real question is how would hiring more people solve that
problem. The answer is it wouldn't - because the problem is not simply one of
manpower to resources thus throwing more money or men at it will not solve the
problem. The problem is process and the ability of government to get away with such
things!<br> </body> </html

Vladimir Jigoun

    > > > Come on people. Get real. Who cares about 4 persons? Just run police database
    > > > with SSNs against IRS database with SSNs and you'll get 4 000 000 (or more?)
    > > > illegal immigrants with phones and home addresses. If you prefer those who ride
    > > > vans you can run it against RMV database, I think you'll get half a mil
    > > > illegals who own vans. Do you want me to post all illegal van owners to this
    > > > newsgroup?
    > >
    > > Go for it!
    >
    > I'd like to know how you can take a police db with SSNs and an IRS db with SSN and
    > find illegal immigrants. If they have a SSN, doesn't it make it harder to know they
    > are illegal?

Sorry, should be INS against police and/or IRS. INS against AT&T, Verizon, RMV, any
bank or credit card company would give lots of them too. There are plenty of ways to
find MILLIONS of illegal immigrants and it seems strange to lose holiday over
checking 4 of them.

John & Deb

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

    > No the real question is how would hiring more people solve that problem. The answer
    > is it wouldn't - because the problem is not simply one of manpower to resources
    > thus throwing more money or men at it will not solve the problem. The problem is
    > process and the ability of government to get away with such things!

Of course the problem is process. That goes without saying. It's wrong that two
Gov't agencies investigate the same thing and neither knows what the other has
uncovered. It's wrong that people slip in and out of this country without so much as
a thought. Yes it is indeed the various processes that allow this to happen. Looking
it square in the eye and seeing it for what it is does not make it go away. What
makes it go away is for someone to do something. The system needs to be revamped.
Money needs to be invested in order to finance bigger and better security systems
and databases. The childish hording of resources and information must be abandoned.
INS should know what IRS knows what FBI knows what CIA knows what the Cop on the
street knows.....BUT it must be handled with a delicate balance because there are
too many ways to infringe on peoples rights. And there is another stumbling block to
deal with. We, the people, create our own Gov't inefficiency because we don't trust
Big Brother. And rightfully so. BTW Overworked and frustrated people make mistakes.
They take sick days in excess they daydream and get sloppy (professionally). Things
start getting pushed to the back burner and sometimes not just unimportant stuff.
Again it's a matter of balance. How many people do you need? how hard do you work
them? When will they start overloading. Oh well I've rambled enough. Thanks for the
exercise. I probably didn't make a whole lot of sense but it was fun